Online tracking and ads too - do you use any blockers?

JaredBusch

uBlock origin is great. It blocks pandora ads once you add the right filter lists, and it is easier to add custom blocking. AdBlock Plus has gotten iffy when you right click -> block element... sometimes it works, sometimes not. uBlock lets you block it all.

My problem with uBlock has been trying to whitelist a site that is in the blacklist of one of the default lists.

RojoLoco

@JaredBusch said:

@RojoLoco said:

uBlock origin is great. It blocks pandora ads once you add the right filter lists, and it is easier to add custom blocking. AdBlock Plus has gotten iffy when you right click -> block element... sometimes it works, sometimes not. uBlock lets you block it all.

My problem with uBlock has been trying to whitelist a site that is in the blacklist of one of the default lists.

To me, it sounds like the problem is that you are trying to whitelist ads. (seriously, wtf???) Those sites have been blacklisted for good reasons.

I have a serious problem with the entire advertising and marketing industry. I will not watch their propaganda. Even though I am immune to it, others are not, so I install the strongest, most block-ifying ad blockers on anything I put my hands on, and encourage all others to do the same. No, I do not feel bad for not helping sites "monetize". If I ever willingly wanted to see adverts of any kind, I'd seriously need to re-evaluate my direction in life.

To those who make adverts: If there is an afterlife, I weep for the torture you all will suffer after death. You are the minions of the devil. You are a large part of what is wrong with the world (politicians are the remainder). I hope that, on your deathbed, you still feel good about your life's work.

MattSpeller

@RojoLoco I share your sentiments on adds but as someone starting up a website I don't know how to monetize it. Maybe paytreon? Something where people could voluntarily give me $0.10 / mth times 100 people = hosting costs covered.

Dashrender

RojoLoco - are you willing to pay all of the websites you visit so they don't have to use ads to make the money needed to have those websites?

That right there is the rub. I don't mind static none blocking/interfering ads. But the advertisers know that those ads are skipped over 99.99% of the time or more.

The big 4 network stations (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) are all ad based stations. Of course now days the cable and satellite companies pay them too, but the majority of their money comes from advertisers. And it's a medium where it works well enough.

So I don't have an issue with their being ads on the page. But when an ad free page takes .7 seconds to download and an ad riddled page takes 45+ seconds even on 50+ Mbit/s internet connections, we have a problem.

MattSpeller

@Dashrender said:

are you willing to pay all of the websites you visit so they don't have to use ads to make the money needed to have those websites?

Yes. Yes I am.

This is what micropayments are perfect for

scottalanmiller

Biggest problem with blocking ads is that ads are the most obvious, easy to identify form of marketing. Take that away and marketing must because more insidious. Instead of running a paid ad, you get vendors paying for fake reviews or for discussions about them to only be positive and everything else to be edited or whatever. Or news articles to actually be ads. Things that most people have no ability to identify.

Dashrender

@MattSpeller said:

@RojoLoco I share your sentiments on adds but as someone starting up a website I don't know how to monetize it. Maybe paytreon? Something where people could voluntarily give me $0.10 / mth times 100 people = hosting costs covered.

Google is doing this as well, it's called Google Contributor. You have to pay a minimum of $5/month to have some fewer amount of ads (no clue how good the different levels are).

Boy it would be great if there was some way to have our ISP take care of this for us, yeah sure it would mean we pay a higher ISP fee, but I'd rather have that and get my faster speeds back and keep the free, errr.. I mean ad supported pages remain.

MattSpeller

@scottalanmiller sips on a Coke

Hmmm, that's interesting.

scratches at his knee featuring Jeans brand Jeans!

I see your point.

Dashrender

@scottalanmiller said:

Biggest problem with blocking ads is that ads are the most obvious, easy to identify form of marketing. Take that away and marketing must because more insidious. Instead of running a paid ad, you get vendors paying for fake reviews or for discussions about them to only be positive and everything else to be edited or whatever. Or news articles to actually be ads. Things that most people have no ability to identify.

We have that already, so what would be different?

MattSpeller

@Dashrender said:

Google is doing this as well, it's called Google Contributor. You have to pay a minimum of $5/month to have some fewer amount of ads (no clue how good the different levels are).

Does this money go to the sites you visit or Google?

RojoLoco

@Dashrender said:

RojoLoco - are you willing to pay all of the websites you visit so they don't have to use ads to make the money needed to have those websites?

That right there is the rub. I don't mind static none blocking/interfering ads. But the advertisers know that those ads are skipped over 99.99% of the time or more.

The big 4 network stations (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox) are all ad based stations. Of course now days the cable and satellite companies pay them too, but the majority of their money comes from advertisers. And it's a medium where it works well enough.

So I don't have an issue with their being ads on the page. But when an ad free page takes .7 seconds to download and an ad riddled page takes 45+ seconds even on 50+ Mbit/s internet connections, we have a problem.

"All those sites I visit" that aren't already subscription based (netflix, et al.) can get their scrilla from everyone else. I refuse to participate in the ad-based dumbing down of the planet. I never visit those TV sites you mentioned (fox, abc, etc), so I feel no guilt. Why should I feel bad if an industry I would see burned alive doesn't get 0.0000472% of their "due" revenue because I'm smarter than their ads?

FK YOUR ADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FK THEM RIGHT IN THE A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dashrender

@MattSpeller said:

@Dashrender said:

Google is doing this as well, it's called Google Contributor. You have to pay a minimum of $5/month to have some fewer amount of ads (no clue how good the different levels are).

Does this money go to the sites you visit or Google?

The sites you visit, otherwise what would be the point.

Instead of seeing an add you see some simple graphic, which apparently after a while you'll realize is the indication that an ad was not displayed, and the placeholder is there instead.

What I don't know or understand is how you're tracked so the Google ads are replaced.. do you have to be logged into chrome, does it only work with Chrome, etc???